MEP Elections

First topic message reminder :

It's the European Parliament Elections on May 22nd, with UKIP hoping to gain the most seats after second place last time out, with Labour and Liberal Democrats looking to hold onto their seats.

But, does anyone care? Only one in three people voted in the last elections, but there seems to be more of a media interest, especially with the TV debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg, which if you haven't seen are worth a watch. Could it be argued that by Labour and Conservatives not showing to the debates, that UKIP and LibDem will gain?

It seems that this year, there will be a higher turnout but will it be a significant amount? UKIP are certainly a more real opposition and will surely gain seats, with the opinion polls showing UKIP are likely to win.

Remember, vote UKIP to stop Prince Phillip 

 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Latest polling round up...........

National
---------

Populus  - Con 35....Lab  34........LD 8.........UKIP 14
Ipsos     - Con 31 ...Lab  34........LD 9.........UKIP 11
Yougov  - Con 34 ...Lab  37.......LD 9.........UKIP 13
Comres  - Con 29 ...Lab  33...... LD 8.........UKIP  19

Euro Elections
-------------

Yougov   - Con 23 .....Lab 27......LD 8.......UKIP 26.....Green 8
Comres   - Con 20......Lab 24......LD 6.......UKIP 36.....Green 7
ICM        - Con 26......Lab 29....LD 8.......UKIP  25

Scottish Independence
----------------------

ICM Scotland  -  Yes 34..............No .........46.....

Would it be a kick in the teeth to the conservatives if labour finish above them?

Well blow me down with a feather. Until about a week ago, about 80% i would say of the comments that were about UKIP on the Guardian WS were mostly unpleasant as you would expect from such a paper, until they eventually realised how futile an exercise it was.

And then i check today and under an headline called - European elections: union left sullen by fury and frustration with political class. I would say about 95% of the comments dislike the EU or want out completely.

Are they secretly going to vote UKIP, but won't tell anyone  

Farage is being helped by the crap he is getting from the media...It's called the "Martyr effect" when the public feels it's overdone and you get the sympathy vote...

Brown was helped by this in 2010..

Anyone see Paxo-Farage last night?

I only caught about 10 minutes of it but he seemed to be coping pretty well with Paxo's usually onslaught.

Yeah, watched the interview. If you get asked the same questions time and again for weeks if not months, i should think it becomes very easy for him. The LBC interview with O'Brien is the only time that i personally have seen him be a bit flustered.

It is the charm/comedy element that helps him out.

Still think it was a mistake for him to apologise earlier in the day though.

I think he had to apologise, it was a stupid thing to say (about the romanians,) and there were a number of other things he could have said to illustrate his point better.

I agree with Trussy as well that UKIP are growing due to the martyr cause but is also to do with the British public being sick and tired of being called Racist for airing legit views.

Derbymanc wrote:I think he had to apologise, it was a stupid thing to say (about the romanians,) and there were a number of other things he could have said to illustrate his point better.

I agree with Trussy as well that UKIP are growing due to the martyr cause but is also to do with the British public being sick and tired of being called Racist for airing legit views.

Legit views such as you should be worried if romanians move in next door to you?

Derbymanc wrote:I think he had to apologise, it was a stupid thing to say (about the romanians,) and there were a number of other things he could have said to illustrate his point better.

I agree with Trussy as well that UKIP are growing due to the martyr cause but is also to do with the British public being sick and tired of being called Racist for airing legit views.

As well as the growing resentment of the EU both here and mainland Europe.

Legit views like unrestrained immigration can have negative economic and social consequences for the host/destination country.

Something you, C_S, have laboured many a time on here.

I think we are all a little bit racist If we are honest. Always going to have bad experiences and then generalise when we should know better...

Immigration is a hard thing to restrain...

YouGov believe Labour are four points ahead of UKIP today, and seven ahead of the Tories. That differs quite widely from Comres.

The Greens are two points in front of the Lib Dems, as well.

Friends keep asking me "how will UKIP change anything by having the most UK MEP's" I see this very often in the media too from their readers proEU comments.

I dispair at times  

CS proving my point perfectly, cheers buddy boy    

Derbymanc wrote:CS proving my point perfectly, cheers buddy boy    

Is he still doing it? I have the ignore on  

Derbymanc wrote:CS proving my point perfectly, cheers buddy boy    

If you don't think it is racist to start saying in the media that people should be scared if Romanians move in next door to you then thats your problem. What is the difference between farage saying people should be scared if romanians move in next door to them and Some other political nutcase telling everyone they should be scared if blacks or jamaicans move in next door to them?

Duty281 wrote:YouGov believe Labour are four points ahead of UKIP today, and seven ahead of the Tories. That differs quite widely from Comres.

The Greens are two points in front of the Lib Dems, as well.

My money would be on labour coming 2nd which is progress for them considering the last 2 elections they came 3rd.

Read my post again, I didn't mention Farage's views in that bit.

Cheers for furthering my point again buddy boy

TopHat24/7 wrote:Legit views like unrestrained immigration can have negative economic and social consequences for the host/destination country.

Something you, C_S, have laboured many a time on here.

That is correct but farage specifically mentions romanians and tells people to fear them, that is not something I would advocate.

Derbymanc wrote:Read my post again, I didn't mention Farage's views in that bit.

Cheers for furthering my point again buddy boy

lets be honest here you don't really know what your point is.

Other than you can't read and are a bit of a bigot

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:CS proving my point perfectly, cheers buddy boy    

If you don't think it is racist to start saying in the media that people should be scared if Romanians move in next door to you then thats your problem. What is the difference between farage saying people should be scared if romanians move in next door to them and Some other political nutcase telling everyone they should be scared if blacks or jamaicans move in next door to them?

It would be xenophobia in such an instance, not racism, as Romanians can be any race/colour. However, I don't think it was either.

He didn't say people "should" be concerned, he said they "would" be concerned (key difference, there), and he used some statistics on crime to back up why people "would" be concerned.

He shouldn't have said it CS....Lucky enough to live in a nice neighborhood so it doesn't affect me..

Have to take as we find

Derbymanc wrote:Other than you can't read and are a bit of a bigot

I can't read your posts cos they lack sense   

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:CS proving my point perfectly, cheers buddy boy    

If you don't think it is racist to start saying in the media that people should be scared if Romanians move in next door to you then thats your problem. What is the difference between farage saying people should be scared if romanians move in next door to them and Some other political nutcase telling everyone they should be scared if blacks or jamaicans move in next door to them?

It would be xenophobia in such an instance, not racism, as Romanians can be any race/colour. However, I don't think it was either.

He didn't say people "should" be concerned, he said they "would" be concerned (key difference, there), and he used some statistics on crime to back up why people "would" be concerned.

why don't you quote me these crime statistics?

Should I start quoting crime stats for the black community and then go on public interviews and saying people would be worried if black people moved in next door to them?

@CS - You don't seem to understand anything, go back through any debates where your involved and half the pages are everyone else having to explain, explain and explain again to you. It doesn't make you look clever, makes you look like a child that can't accept when someone doesn't agree with what he says.

@Duty - He shouldn't have said it either way, most people know what he was getting at (if your not sure, take a train to manchester and go hang around the top end of crumpsall late at night you'll understand then.) He really doesn't help himself sometimes.

C_S - I'm merely saying that there is a difference between "should" and "would".

If Farage was saying people "should" be scared if Romanians moved in next door, as you incorrectly speculated that he did, then that would be encouraging hatred and division.

Farage saying "would", as he did, is him referencing what he believes to be the public mood surrounding Romanian immigrants.

They are two different words, one of which would completely distort the meaning of what he is trying to say.

In any event, I disagree with him on this matter, and would certainly not feel uncomfortable if some Romanians moved next door purely on the basis of their nationality.

Come on let's calm down

Derbymanc wrote:@CS - You don't seem to understand anything, go back through any debates where your involved and half the pages are everyone else having to explain, explain and explain again to you. It doesn't make you look clever, makes you look like a child that can't accept when someone doesn't agree with what he says.

@Duty - He shouldn't have said it either way, most people know what he was getting at (if your not sure, take a train to manchester and go hang around the top end of crumpsall late at night you'll understand then.) He really doesn't help himself sometimes.

when someone votes for the most pro-eu party in the uk and then tells everyone he is sick of the eu I will challenge that poster.

Duty281 wrote:I'm merely saying that there is a difference between "should" and "would".

If Farage was saying people "should" be scared if Romanians moved in next door, as you incorrectly speculated that he did, then that would be encouraging hatred and division.

Farage saying "would", as he did, is him referencing what he believes to be the public mood surrounding Romanian immigrants.

They are two different words, onw of which would completely distort the meaning of what he is trying to say.

In any event, I disagree with him on this matter, and would certainly not feel uncomfortable if some Romanians moved next door.

you are just quoting farage when he talked about should and would in his apology.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Legit views like unrestrained immigration can have negative economic and social consequences for the host/destination country.

Something you, C_S, have laboured many a time on here.

That is correct but farage specifically mentions romanians and tells people to fear them, that is not something I would advocate.

Does he?

Because he was quite clear last night that the questionner mentioned Romanians as the context to the question, not Farage.

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:CS proving my point perfectly, cheers buddy boy    

If you don't think it is racist to start saying in the media that people should be scared if Romanians move in next door to you then thats your problem. What is the difference between farage saying people should be scared if romanians move in next door to them and Some other political nutcase telling everyone they should be scared if blacks or jamaicans move in next door to them?

It would be xenophobia in such an instance, not racism, as Romanians can be any race/colour. However, I don't think it was either.

He didn't say people "should" be concerned, he said they "would" be concerned (key difference, there), and he used some statistics on crime to back up why people "would" be concerned.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998: A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality or ethnic national origins

Duty281 wrote:C_S - I'm merely saying that there is a difference between "should" and "would".

If Farage was saying people "should" be scared if Romanians moved in next door, as you incorrectly speculated that he did, then that would be encouraging hatred and division.

Farage saying "would", as he did, is him referencing what he believes to be the public mood surrounding Romanian immigrants.

They are two different words, one of which would completely distort the meaning of what he is trying to say.

In any event, I disagree with him on this matter, and would certainly not feel uncomfortable if some Romanians moved next door purely on the basis of their nationality.

Should British people be wary of Romanian families moving into their street? 'well of course, yeah'.- Nigel farage

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/25/nigel-farage-ukip-european-parliament-elections

How ridiculous is that? OK, let me rephrase, in modern, PC, 21st century Britain, where the meaning of racism has been extended far beyond the actual word, then yes it would be termed as racism. In a sensible world, it's xenophobia.

And I'm rather confused now as to whether Farage said "should" or "would", as different sites are quoting him differently. Either way, I would disagree with him.

Duty281 wrote:

How ridiculous is that? OK, let me rephrase, in modern, PC, 21st century Britain, where the meaning of racism has been extended far beyond the actual word, then yes it would be termed as racism. In a sensible world, it's xenophobia.

And I'm rather confused now as to whether Farage said "should" or "would", as different sites are quoting him differently. Either way, I would disagree with him.

Well I am glad you disagree with him on that point.

Out of interest what is your personal definition of racism?

Someone who discriminates against people because of their race, and/or believes in pre-defined characteristics based on that race.

Duty281 wrote:Someone who discriminates against people because of their race, and/or believes in pre-defined characteristics based on that race.

So what is your definition of race?

Race is largely defined by biological traits; these days, we generally define race by the colour of someone's skin.

Of course, really, there is no fixed definition for race, and it is certainly something that has become confused over time, and "racism" is a largely overused "ism" in the 21st century.

Telegraph;
Up to one in three Romanian migrants have been arrested, figures have showed, as the country ranked second in a list of foreigners held over serious offences. And with many thousands more expected. Should we build more prisons.


Clearly a problem.

race2 /reɪs/ Show Spelled [reys] Show IPA
noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race?s=t

Arrested is different to being charged...

Also there is much doubt about the validity of the figures..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Arrested is different to being charged...

Also there is much doubt about the validity of the figures..

True, but still clearly a big concern for London folk in all walks of life from the many comments i have read.

Duty281 wrote:Race is largely defined by biological traits; these days, we generally define race by the colour of someone's skin.

Of course, really, there is no fixed definition for race, and it is certainly something that has become confused over time, and "racism" is a largely overused "ism" in the 21st century.

So based on your own opinion you wouldn't describe hitler's actions of rounding up millions of Jews and gassing them to death purely because they were Jews as racist?

What would you describe the act as? Do you think it would have been worse if Hitler had decided to round up 6 million black people and gas them because they were black or round up 6 million romanian people and gas them purely for being romanian instead of gassing 6 million jews for being jewish? Or do you think it has the same catastrophic effect?

You claim that the term racism involving not only skin colour but nationality and religion is a sign of how PC this country has become but the fact of the matter is that no matter the discrimination (colour/religion/nationality) they each can be equally as bad as each other and so your complaint that they should not all come under the tab of racism is unfounded. It doesn't matter if one should technically be called xenophobia or islamophobia or racism etc if they can be equally as bad then the term used to describe that discrimination is irrelevant.

If you asked an average guy on the street what his views would be to killing someone because of their skin colour he would say it is wrong or killing someone because of their religion he would say it is wrong and killing someone because of their nationality he would say it is wrong. It is not Political correctness to hold the opinion that the killing based on nationality/colour/religion is wrong and they all can be equally as wrong as each other so labelling them all as racism rather than xenophobia or islamophobia etc is not political correctness because if they were seperate criminal offences of islamophobia or xenophobia or racism they would each carry the same maximum sentence. The term racism has just evolved to include all types of discrimination rather than having 5 different words to label each different discrimination as.

skyeman wrote:Telegraph;
Up to one in three Romanian migrants have been arrested, figures have showed, as the country ranked second in a list of foreigners held over serious offences. And with many thousands more expected. Should we build more prisons.


Clearly a problem.

Perhaps you should quote an official source such as the Met police.... And also a lot of romanians are arrested for being homeless and begging, hardly something I will have sleepless nights over.

There was also a big thing in the news regarding operation Trident and how 90% of all street crime in London was committed by black people. Should I form a political party and start telling everyone they should be worried if a black family moved in next door to them?

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Race is largely defined by biological traits; these days, we generally define race by the colour of someone's skin.

Of course, really, there is no fixed definition for race, and it is certainly something that has become confused over time, and "racism" is a largely overused "ism" in the 21st century.

So based on your own opinion you wouldn't describe hitler's actions of rounding up millions of Jews and gassing them to death purely because they were Jews as racist?

What would you describe the act as? Do you think it would have been worse if Hitler had decided to round up 6 million black people and gas them because they were black or round up 6 million romanian people and gas them purely for being romanian instead of gassing 6 million jews for being jewish? Or do you think it has the same catastrophic effect?

You claim that the term racism involving not only skin colour but nationality and religion is a sign of how PC this country has become but the fact of the matter is that no matter the discrimination (colour/religion/nationality) they each can be equally as bad as each other and so your complaint that they should not all come under the tab of racism is unfounded. It doesn't matter if one should technically be called xenophobia or islamophobia or racism etc if they can be equally as bad then the term used to describe that discrimination is irrelevant.

If you asked an average guy on the street what his views would be to killing someone because of their skin colour he would say it is wrong or killing someone because of their religion he would say it is wrong and killing someone because of their nationality he would say it is wrong. It is not Political correctness to hold the opinion that the killing based on nationality/colour/religion is wrong and they all can be equally as wrong as each other so labelling them all as racism rather than xenophobia or islamophobia etc is not political correctness because if they were seperate criminal offences of islamophobia or xenophobia or racism they would each carry the same maximum sentence. The term racism has just evolved to include all types of discrimination rather than having 5 different words to label each different discrimination as.

I believe the term for what Hitler did to millions of Jews is "anti-semitism"; however, there is no doubt Hitler was a racist as he believed in the Aryans being the master race.

Whilst I would agree that xenophobia/racism are equally bad, the words carry two different meanings and, as such, it dilutes their meaning when you stretch the definitions.

I believe Godwin's law has finally kicked in.

Gents lets try and steer the conversation away from ethnicity. It rarely if ever ends well. Us mods have been more than reasonable in letting this one run, but meet us halfway and avoid subjects that are as toxic as this one almost invariably is.

Never fear, Rowley, Azania isn't here!

It will be too late to save London once the full restrictions are lifted in a few months. Gov figures estimate 50,000 Romanians per year for five years.

Going to cost a fortune.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

skyeman wrote:Telegraph;
Up to one in three Romanian migrants have been arrested, figures have showed, as the country ranked second in a list of foreigners held over serious offences. And with many thousands more expected. Should we build more prisons.


Clearly a problem.

Perhaps you should quote an official source such as the Met police.... And also a lot of romanians are arrested for being homeless and begging, hardly something I will have sleepless nights over.

There was also a big thing in the news regarding operation Trident and how 90% of all street crime in London was committed by black people. Should I form a political party and start telling everyone they should be worried if a black family moved in next door to them?

Accuse someone of proving un-evidenced misinformation and then provide your own spurious 'statistic' in response? Interesting.

I believe that 90% is to do with knife and/or violent and/or gun crime, not the totality of street crime. Given that Trident is all about black gangs and black-on-black gun-crime in particular I'd be further surprised.

Also, the fact there isn't an issue or discussion about a sudden 'invasion' of black people into the country suggests your childish counter-argument is even more spurious.